Positive reviews for Sweeney Todd (reprinted from a comment in someone else's LJ)

[fpb]

I see. They like it because it makes mass murder and cannibalism entertaining. Well, as a historian, I have had enough of that in my subject, and I must say that I do not see the fun in it. Hollywood, however, does, ever since The Silence of the Lambs and Fried Green Tomatoes. But then, an industry that relies on the regular destruction of its own personnel may not have any trouble with cannibalism. I wonder - has anyone ever checked the ingredients in Hollywood restaurants and caterers?

Comments

Re: Sweeney Todd

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My point exactly. That's what makes it self-indulgent. As in: "Why should I bother about being nice to the other guy? It's a dog eat dog world anyway..."

Re: Sweeney Todd

[elskuligr.livejournal.com]

Again, I beg to differ (and again my message is going to be a bit longish, sorry about that), seeing the world as ugly is quite distinct from being self-indulgent and taking the first as evidence of the latter does not seem logically sound to me.
Of course the ending of a tale has a huge impact on its meaning. Harry Potter can't end badly because it is essentially a Bildungsroman, so there would be no sense in it if the hero did not become an adult at the end of the series. On the other hand, Sweeney Todd can't end well, otherwise it would negate its whole point, which is the exploration of a nightmare, of the darker side of man if you want, which can't disappear as if by magic.
Having the story end well would be a lie, a contradiction of the notion conveyed by the story that cruelty and darkness are essential part of man and especially of the city.
Yes it is not a constructive, positive image of life, but there is no reason why it should be.
Heart of Darkness is none of these things, that doesn't make it immoral or self-indulgent in the slightest. Optimism is not a criterion of morality.
As far as morality goes, I would certainly agree that the movie is not very rich.
In Sweeney Todd what matters the most is the tale as such rather than any moral teaching it might bring. But if it doesn't teach us to act morally (and there is no reason why art should make this its first business), it certainly doesn't teach to act immorally either: first because its business in general is not to teach, but to tell a tale and second because none of the villains receive lasting gratification for their crimes and this fact does matter, even if there is no restoration of the order of the world or any return to some prelapserian paradise.
Does Sweeney Todd find pleasure in killing, does he get happines from it for a while until he is killed himself? I don't think so. The representation is certainly meant to elicit a fascination in the audience, based partly on purely aesthetic grounds and on a form of morbid humour, but it is far from obvious that the character who, to all intent and purpose, died as a human being 15 years ago, gains any satisfaction from it all.
Similarly, the baker might gain some financial gratification from her crimes for a while, but is she happy? She lied to obtain the love of a man, only to be tolerated by him and then hated by him when he discovers the truth.
If any criticism can leveled at the movie on moral grounds, it is not that it teaches wrong things, but that it does not confront the moral issues at stake on a very deep level, and takes a greater interest in the telling of the tale itself.
However, I do not think that every work of art has to make moral issues its first and foremost aim, so I don't see this as a problem, as long as the movie does not pretend to achieve more than that.

Re: Sweeney Todd

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Long, thoughtful (and polite) responses are very welcome in this blog. The fact that you take the trouble to respond with the best your intellect can offer is itself a compliment. Nevertheless, I think you are still rather a victim to self-indulgent modern categories. You quoted the fable of Bluebeard; but Bluebeard ends not just in the destruction of the villain, but also in an assertion of the value of decency - although modified by the ancient peasant cunning that says "if you meddle in what is no concern of yours" (that is, if you become curious about Bluebeard's secrets), "you'll end up in trouble." You do, but in the end, it is the murderer who is punished. The way in which Sondheim and Burton tackle the dirty old anecdote is to deny any correspondence between reality and morality: in fact, they positively reverse it. The world as they describe it is the world as Sweeney sees it - bloodshot, livid, vicious, ugly. Tell me, does it answer to your experience of reality? It does not to mine. In my world, the sun shines equally, and the snow fall equally, on the good and the evil, and Ol'Man River does go rolling along in spite of all the ugliness he may witness. The background even to the darkest tragedies is inevitably beautiful. If you insist on looking at the world through smoke-coloured spectacles, you tell nothing true about it, merely impose upon it your own obsessions. And that is self-indulgent.

Re: Sweeney Todd

[jezreelite.livejournal.com]

What about Charles Perrault's version of "Little Red Riding Hood?"

Ultimately, Sweeney Todd is a morality tale about the futilities of revenge. It's rather strange that you seem to have missed that entirely.

Re: Sweeney Todd

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think that it probably is a dog eat dog world, however I do not believe that this makes it okay to eat other dogs; on the contrary, I do my best to resist that kind of attitude toward other people and try to improve things, instead.

If a movie portrays a world as being naturally evil, then it would influence me even more to resist it. But that's as far as I can go, regarding the movie. I mean his movie may portray the world this way, but I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it is trying to convince people to not let the world be this way, or to show that we shouldn't bother being nice. If it's the latter, then, yeah. I wouldn't like that.